Categories
antifeminism crackpottery evil women internal debate irony alert masculinity MRA victimhood

Male-strom in a Teacup

No, not THAT kind of “male study.”

“Men’s Studies” has existed as an academic discipline for several decades now. Not surprisingly, most of those involved in it identify themselves as feminists – as people interested in studying gender tend to do. But not all of them: A couple of years back, a group of mostly anti-feminist academics and popular writers with an interest in gender decided to try to do a sort of end run around the discipline of “Men’s Studies” by conjuring up a whole new, altogether un-feminist discipline called “Male Studies.”

Recently, The University of South Australia announced that it would start offering postgraduate courses in Male Studies sometime in 2014; our old friend Eoghan/Sigil1 brought this earthshattering news to the Men’s Rights subreddit the other day, where it was greeted with … suspicion and hostility.

GotMyFrogHatOn wrote:

Great, now men have the same opportunity as women to waste their time and money on a worthless degree!

Liverotto was even blunter:

YES, because the cure to bullshit is… MORE BULLSHIT! /s

That’s right: Men’s Rights Redditors hate Women’s Studies, and Gender Studies, and apparently every academic discipline with the word “Studies” in it so much that they’ve transferred this hatred to a new academic discipline that could well have been (and sort of was) designed just for them.

But don’t worry, they still hate Women’s Studies the most:

What was I saying the other day about projection?

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

495 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
lauralot89
8 years ago

Really you guys, what alternate reality are you living in?

Kyrie
Kyrie
8 years ago

I started typing an answer, then realized I might be misunderstanding something. The equivalent expression in my language to “fairer sex” translate as “beautiful sex” or “weak sex”. Could someone tell me what it means in English?

Ayway, I live in a reality where I, and many women, find men sexy. Craaaaaaaaazy, I know.

jumbofish
8 years ago

The fairer sex is just a cultural idea?! LOL! Sure, and the peacock being fairer than the peahen is just a cultural idea. Really you guys, what alternate reality are you living in?

Sorry I have enough brain to question what society deems at “the truth” about whatever. I have notice that its not always the truth. And besides that peacock are male birds and peahens are female birds so if you are trying to make an analogy to humans you fail. XD

Cliff Pervocracy
8 years ago

It’s true you guys. Scientists held up Fair-O-Meters to peacocks and peahens and determined this. And they were scientists doing it with science so you can’t question it.

Peacocks are scientifically beautiful.

Dracula
Dracula
8 years ago

Haha, seriously Ruby? THAT’S your response? Really?

Hang on, I need to do some research.

*checks body for feathers*

Sorry Rubes, but it turn out humans aren’t pea fowl. SCIENCE!

Kyrie
Kyrie
8 years ago

Does ‘fairer’ mean ‘more beautiful’?

Manjaw the Mighty
8 years ago

Where “fairer” strictly denotes “more beautiful,” of course it is a cultural construct. Nature has no objective, universal concept of what is and is not aesthetically pleasing. I’m not quite sure where peacocks fit into your attempt at an argument. It is certainly a human projection that make peacocks are “more beautiful” than females. (And did you know that sometimes peahens grow male plumage when they reach peafowl menopause? Just an unrelated but cool little fact.)

Where “fairer” is accompanied by a retinue of other connotations, it is even more obviously a social construct.

Regarding brains, I recommend this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Delusions-Gender-Society-Neurosexism-Difference/dp/0393068382

Also, there are more than just two sexes. Human beings come in a dazzling array of different chromosomal make-ups, genital configurations, hormone levels, and secondary sex characteristics, so the whole idea of “males” and “females” as “opposite,” discreet groups isn’t a given, much less the idea of “male brains” and “female brains.” What contemporary neuroscience has suggested is that testosterone might have some effect on brain development. But testosterone isn’t a “male” hormone. All human beings, regardless of “sex,” produce testosterone to varying degrees, including not at all.

(I know all Amazons, including myself, consider ourselves “matriarchal” and place “women” in a place of cultural privilege and honor, but our conceptions of gender and sex are a little bit different and more complicated than those of patriarchal society. Not perfect, if I may say so, but complicated.)

jumbofish
8 years ago

I’ve always thought peacocks were overrated anyway, peahens have their own lovely plumage.

Cliff Pervocracy
8 years ago

I bet peacocks think peahens are pretty beautiful.

Manjaw the Mighty
8 years ago

I bet peacocks think peahens are pretty beautiful.

I just wanted to quote this immediately after you posted it for no other reason than I love it.

lauralot89
8 years ago

How to participate in a discussion, the Ruby way!

1. State your opinion as fact.
2. Respond to those saying “that’s just your opinion” by rephrasing your statement and claiming you have been misrepresented.
3. Do not respond directly to any posts again; doing so may result in having to back up your assertions.
4. Respond to objections with “It’s science! Are you delusional?!” Repeat as needed.
5. Do not contribute anything of value to the discussion ever.
6. ???
7. Profit!

Snowy
Snowy
8 years ago

I’m so confused… do the peacocks not like to look at the peahens naked because nudity is not a good look for them? Or is it the peahens who don’t like to look at the peacocks naked?

Kyrie
Kyrie
8 years ago

If we were like peacocks, we wouldn’t have so many people using make-up and pretty clothes. One sex would have pretty colors naturally. Instead, what do we have? Slightly different body shapes.
And are you saying that the peacock doesn’t get horny* when seeing a peahen (at the right season?) because that seems unlikely (especially, because, thank you google, the male is on top while mating. he has to want to mate or the specie dies)

*do birds get horny? do the have sexual pleasure? brb.

Kyrie
Kyrie
8 years ago

1. State your opinion as fact.
2. Respond to those saying “that’s just your opinion” by rephrasing your statement and claiming you have been misrepresented.
3. Do not respond directly to any posts again; doing so may result in having to back up your assertions.
4. Respond to objections with “It’s science! Are you delusional?!” Repeat as needed.
5. Do not contribute anything of value to the discussion ever.
6. ???
7. Profit!

8. Speak on another thread like nothing ever happened.

lauralot89
8 years ago

Damn. I also skipped “Why are you picking on another feminist, you extremists!”

Hippodameia
Hippodameia
8 years ago

There’s also claiming to be a BETTER feminist because SCIENCE.

lauralot89
8 years ago

Sorry Rubes, but it turn out humans aren’t pea fowl. SCIENCE!

Actually, I’ve secretly been a peacock this whole time. I’m sorry to have lied to everyone for all these months.

Dracula
Dracula
8 years ago

Another thing that might need to go in there somewhere:

Call your opponents dumbasses; get furious when they call you a dumbass.

Kyrie
Kyrie
8 years ago

And.. what do think of that, lauralot? It’s fore Science.

lauralot89
8 years ago

It appears that your link doesn’t want to open for me…it’s because I have feathers, isn’t it?

Sharculese
8 years ago

The fairer sex is just a cultural idea?! LOL! Sure, and the peacock being fairer than the peahen is just a cultural idea. Really you guys, what alternate reality are you living in?

i’m not an evolutionary biologist but i feel pretty confident saying the last common ancestor of humans and peacocks was fucking forever ago.

to repeat: science- you don’t understand it.

Kyrie
Kyrie
8 years ago

html mistakes are misandry. Or in my DNA. Or is it because of cave women? Meh.

http://www.clipart.dk.co.uk/DKImages/Animals/image_sci_animal035.jpg

Kyrie
Kyrie
8 years ago

I have feather too, actually. Pretty blue ones. That might be the cause.

lauralot89
8 years ago

Now that there is one beautiful bird.

Sharculese
8 years ago

when i was little i used to go to summer camp at the zoo and one time an employee in cart came around a corner too fast and scared the shit out of one of the free-roaming peacocks and it shot all its tailfeathers i guess as a defense mechanism and there wasnt any point to that story except i got a free peacock feather

Ruby Hypatia
Ruby Hypatia
8 years ago

Women getting more beautiful, say scientists

Evolution has led to women, but not men, getting progressively beautiful, according to scientists.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5912250/Women-getting-more-beautiful-say-scientists.html

jumbofish
8 years ago

You are a funny one ruby. I wonder how they decided which women were “beautiful” and which ones were not.

Ithiliana
8 years ago

@Jumbofish: not only that, did you notice that the study covered FOUR WHOLE DECADES?

Because of course you can totes make claims about evolution and “subtle programming” of DNA with that time frame.

And of course they knew who is most beautiful because SCIENCE!

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

Also, hmm, could it be that modern women conform to modern beauty standards better than women did in a time period where the beauty standard was a little different? We will never know, because of course we’re going to accept every “study” as gospel, no matter how poorly designed.

Sharculese
8 years ago

dude, you’ve been told this like fifteen times now but it doesnt seem to sink in, so once again: you would have to be exceedingly gullible to cite pop science reports in general consumption publications as evidence of what ‘science’ says. you do not know what science is.

but seriously, pseudo-scientific studies based on subjective phenomena? that is a new low, even for you.

Kyrie
Kyrie
8 years ago

Ruby, your article quote Kanazawa, a guy who published last year, in Psychology Today, a article saying that black women were less pretty than other women (it has been removed since). If this guy said that a flower was pretty, I would be suspicious as to his motives and methods.
And your article is a newspaper, not a scientific journal.

Ithiliana
8 years ago

Scientific proof via democratic vote that men are just as beautiful as women:

http://www.laughspin.com/2012/05/22/stephen-colbert-lands-on-maxims-list-of-top-100-beautiful-women-in-the-world/

Sharculese
8 years ago

you know who else insists that ‘science’ supports all their preconceived notions of reality? mras.

Kyrie
Kyrie
8 years ago

And they don’t even give their sources, just a few name of people and university. Real serious SCIENCE here.

lauralot89
8 years ago

What does her latest study say? We peacocks can’t read too well.

Kyrie
Kyrie
8 years ago

Sharculese: also, Scientologists. And Star Wars, Episode I.

(sorry)

Sharculese
8 years ago

What does her latest study say? We peacocks can’t read too well.

‘beautiful’ people have 16% more children, according to a research at the university of helsinki’s institute of non-falsifiable claims

Sharculese
8 years ago

Science proves women have changed how they look since the 1950s:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2138022/No-plastic-surgery-breast-implants–Magic-City-TV-bosses-reveal-struggle-natural-women-Miami-1950s-series.html

of all the stupid fucking backwards ass shit. ‘sorry guys, we cant make the movie we wanted of because the extras’ breasts are destroying our verisimilitude’

Dracula
Dracula
8 years ago

Say Ruby, perhaps you could tell how beauty is quantified? What’s the standard scientific measurement of beauty?

hellkell
hellkell
8 years ago

Utter tediousness and massive derailing to no discernable point isn’t a bannable offense, right? Oh, no reason. Just checking.

Sharculese
8 years ago

ruby, since you appear to be totally scientifically illiterate i guess i should explain to you that non-falsifiable is a technical term meaning ‘speculative un-provable bullshit’

trying to classify people into ‘beautiful’ and ‘non-beautiful’ falls pretty squarely under that heading

Kyrie
Kyrie
8 years ago

I find it funny that they illustrate an article about beauty being a natural survival strategy with a woman whose beauty depend obviously of make up, skin and product. And well, I’m no expert (and don’t know anything about her), but in this picture she looks like she used botox.

Sharculese
8 years ago

claims of this sort are generally published in the American Journal of Huffing Just Incredible Fucking Amounts of Glue. its peer-reviewed, but the review process is generally impaired because y’know, the glue huffing…

Kyrie
Kyrie
8 years ago
cloudiah
8 years ago

You can always trust news stories that quote scientists, after all.

Representing multiple fields of study, including ecology, agriculture, biology, and economics, the researchers told reporters that facts are facts: Humanity has far exceeded its sustainable population size, so either one in three humans can choose how they want to die themselves, or there can be some sort of government-mandated liquidation program—but either way, people have to start dying.

But you know what — actually, we don’t need to worry about it. According to NASA scientists (the best kind of scientists)

the planet Nibiru will collide with Earth in July of this year.

Please note the existence of extraterrestrial beings called “zetas” in this scientific article. Apparently, aliens have their dating problems too.
Anyway, it’s been nice knowing you all; take care of yourselves until doomsday.

Sharculese
8 years ago

What’s the standard scientific measurement of beauty?

milliPitts

Kyrie
Kyrie
8 years ago

oups, *skin and hair products

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

Fox units.

Sharculese
8 years ago

@kyrie

look she was VOTED the most beautiful person in the world. that is the most scientific standard possible.